March 21st, 2010 • 06:03
Two Reasons Why The Word “Liberty” Shouldn’t Be Overused
First of all, on this issue, let me put my own thoughts out there. Is it really that big of a deal for a girl to wear a tuxedo to the prom? Especially such a big deal that lawsuits and the canceling of senior prom are what follows? I think not. The school board should have made an amendment to their rules and avoided this whole stupid ordeal. HOWEVER, those are the rules, and a school board that was elected by the people in that town made the rules. It is NOT a civil liberty to wear a suite to prom. It is NOT a civil liberty to have a prom at ALL! Yet these two so called “liberties” are going to the courts to establish them as so. The ACLU is getting involved, of course (surprise) and today they are scheduled in federal court to force the district to hold the prom. No, I’m not making this up. Your rights include your right to remain silent, your right to bear arms, and your right to a fancy and magical night during prom (in which case I’m filing my law suite, because both of my proms sucked). Now, the adult thing that Constance McMillen could have and in fact should have done is to go ahead and go to prom in a dress with her date. After that, find some school board candidates that were pro-tux and use this national issue to draw exposure and monies to get them elected. Boom. Would she have missed out on the joys of suiting up for a night? Sure, but she would have shown class and signs of being an adult by going about things the right way so that lesbian couples down the road could go to prom in a tux. Instead, she has national exposure that she’s a sue happy brat and a fresh cut check from Ellen DeGeneres so that she won’t have to pay for her college. Hows that for rewarding bad behavior?
This next supposed “liberty” is just as bad. Catherine Pierce thinks that her first amendment rights are being violated because she enjoys gardening in the nude, which is of course frowned upon. According to the AP out of Boulder, Colorado, all she had on was a yellow thong and pink gloves. While I’m certain it was an amusing sight, and yes, she has her first amendment rights, the other people in the town ALSO have their rights. And included in those rights is a right to not have to give “the talk” to their 12 year old son a couple years early because of Catherine Pierces love of all natural gardening. The fact that she and her husband took a picture of them with duct tape over their mouths, as if they are being wronged somehow, is both amusing and horrifying. Now mind you, I’m not saying horrifying because of the substance of the article (after all, I don’t know what she looks like naked) but because she truly believes that she has a right to public nudity.
There you have it. In one of our soon to be rights the issue is about what clothes are ON the body, and the other the issue is what clothes AREN’T on the body. What country is this that we live in, where these two issues are taken more seriously than, say, how old the milk is in the fridge?
Leave a Reply
Mar 21st 2010 • 12:03
by nate sexton
where does it say in the constitution that people have the right not to be exposed to public nudity?
Mar 21st 2010 • 12:03
by nate sexton
p.s.: “In today’s letter to Itawamba County School District officials, the ACLU cited federal court cases guaranteeing students’ First Amendment right to bring same-sex dates to school dances, and also pointed out that treating McMillen and other lesbian, gay, and bisexual students differently from other students violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees. In addition to illegally barring McMillen and her girlfriend from attending the prom together, the ACLU said that the school further violated McMillen’s free expression rights by telling her that she can’t wear a tuxedo to the prom.” (1)
a public school simply cannot discriminate against a student in this manner.
Mar 21st 2010 • 20:03
by Travis
You’re absolutely wrong on this, Nate. Schools dictate dress codes all the time. I could give a crap what the ACLU says on this. Just because the ACLU says something is un-Constitutional does not make it so. That’s like me saying the Constitutional lawyers that represent the pro-life groups say that abortion in un-Constitutional, however Roe v. Wade says differently. If Roe v. Wade gets turned over, then ok, however it isn’t as of yet and so yes, abortion is currently Constitutional. And yes, in the Constitution it grants the states the right to pass state laws, and Colorado had an indecent exposure law that the woman was not upholding. Not everything is a liberty, Nate, as much as you would like everything to be so.
Mar 22nd 2010 • 09:03
by nate sexton
i don’t think you understand the case. you said:”Now, the adult thing that Constance McMillen could have and in fact should have done is to go ahead and go to prom in a dress with her date.” however, this is contrary to the school’s policy. the administration sent out leaflets informing students that same-sex couples were not allowed. when constance inquired, the administration explicitly informed her that she could not bring a female date & that if both parties arrived separately but danced together… they would be removed. this is unconstitutional & discriminatory.
Mar 22nd 2010 • 18:03
by Travis Gearhart
From what I’ve read on several different forums, it was a combination of the breaking of the two rules, and yes, the ACLU is suing for her to be able to wear a suit. Still, it is NOT unconstitutional for the school to not allow same sex partners to attend prom together. Like I wrote above, do I agree with the policy? No. BUT that does not make it unconstitutional. What Amendment, Nate, covers prom etiquette and prom rules? I’d love to know.
Mar 23rd 2010 • 07:03
by nate sexton
wait, you read that the school was barring her from bringing her girlfriend? you read & were aware of the fact that the school was denying same-sex couples the opportunity to attend prom? so, why did you pretend that that wasn’t an issue? why did you suggest that the “adult” thing would have been for constance to go to prom (with her date) in a dress? did you just think no one would know anything about this case or decide to look it up? how is this not an embarrassing example of deceptive omission?
also, the fourteenth amendment and the equal protection clause guarantee equal treatment under the law. this means discriminatory behavior on the basis of sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. is unlawful, especially considering that this is a public school. it would be as equally unconstitutional if the school had told interracial couples or muslim students that they were not allowed to attend.
Mar 23rd 2010 • 18:03
by Travis Gearhart
Ha ha ha! Nate, really. The Fourteenth Amendment mentions nothing about same sex partners, my naive friend. I’m assuming you’re referencing the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” line from that Amendment. It’s all up to how the judges interpret the case, but as I read the Fourteenth Amendment, I see nothing about gays going to prom. How is it not an embarrassing example of your lack of reading comprehension abilities? My main focus of the piece was the dress code violations of the two individuals. And yes, she could have gone to the prom with her date (and forgive me, I wrote this piece very early after a midnight shift and neglected to include a section about how she could have went with her date and not screamed it from the rafters and could have easily gotten away with it). After all, when I was her age, I did plenty of things the school didn’t want me to, and knew a lesbian couple that went to prom with their “dates” and then danced with each other the entire time. As I said, I write so many things at all hours of the day that I’m bound to forget an entry here or there. You’re right about it being unconstitutional to not allow Muslims or interracial couples: those two items (religion and race) are blatantly covered in the Constitution. Same sex couples? NOT covered. Perhaps when the court looks at the case they will set the precedent, but until then, your wrong buddy. “Liberty” and “rights” are thrown around so much by you liberals that they hardly mean anything anymore anyways. Everything’s a damn “liberty”, and everyone shouldn’t have their feelings hurt and we should drift away on cotton candy clouds and give kisses to each other that taste like maple syrup
Oh beautiful absurd retarded utopias. Oh! I’m sorry…I didn’t offend you with the use of the word retarded did I?
Mar 23rd 2010 • 18:03
by Travis Gearhart
This will all make sense when you’re out in the real world there, kid. College campus is NOT the real world. In the real world, people don’t watch every word that they say in order not to offend Prince Nate. In fact, speaking of liberties, doesn’t a Christian community have the RIGHT or the LIBERTY to push for laws that would be in line with their fate? Now granted, this is a hypothetical question here to prove a point about “made up liberties”. Wouldn’t the school repealing it’s rule because of media pressure to allow lesbians to attend prom openly violate the “thought liberties” of the Christian community? Didn’t the 15th Amendment violate the “thought liberties” of bigoted individuals who didn’t think that blacks had the right to vote? Granted, I’m obviously in favor of the 15th Amendment and disagree with the school’s actions (as I noted in the actual post) but there’s a PROCESS there for a reason, Nate. This girl just wanted to get on TV, and it worked. Otherwise she would have worked through the process to gain much more respect as a grown up or would have just broken the schools rules right under their noses (which is easy to do). So step down from your high horse and take a Constitutional Law class or two before you start screaming “liberty”, “rights”, and “unconstitutional” at every thing that you disagree with.
Mar 23rd 2010 • 21:03
by nate sexton
you do realize that any case of discrimination or infringement of civil liberties (other than those involving voter rights or the free exercise of religion) is referred to the fourteenth amendment and the equal protection clause? according to cornell law, the equal protection law is in violation “when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right”(1). for instance, you agreed that an interracial couple being denied access to prom would be unconstitutional. however, you ostensibly denied the relevance of the fourteenth amendment in this consideration. you argue that race is “blatantly covered in the constitution.” however, this is not true. the case of discriminating against interracial couples and constance’s case both share the same constitutional ambiguity. as cornell law reports: “there is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional” (2). in fact, the only thing that may make one case clearer than another is precedent.
for example, the 1967 civil rights case loving v. virginia determined that the ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. this determination was based on a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment (the same clause that lacks any reference to race, religion, sex, etc.). this case is not special. the vast majority of important civil rights cases refer to and involve the fourteenth amendment, and especially the equal protection clause (which you miss-misquoted, by the way). the classifications of discrimination range from religion, race, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, and even political belief (all without clear & explicit constitutional direction). the 2003 supreme court case, lawrence v. texas, found the criminalization of homosexual sodomy unconstitutional under due process and the fourteenth amendment; this being just one of many instances in which sexual orientation is considered as under constitutional protection (by the fourteenth amendment, and without being “blatantly” covered).
you see, the fourteenth amendment is intentionally ambiguous (as is much of the constitution). this ambiguity allows for a more plastic interpretation which is able to be applied and reapplied to a great variety of civil rights cases. the lack of any clarification prevents the courts from committing the same error that you have just made: arguing that equal protection is only for those persons “blatantly” referred to in the constitution. the ninth amendment also refers to this problem: “the enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” so, your premise that something should be “blatantly covered” before being considered a constitutional issue is an utter failure. on one hand, it is historically and constitutionally contradicted. further, the lack of any “blatant” constitutional language, considering the discrimination of race and religion for the examples i provided (i.e. muslim students and or interracial couples attending prom), denies your own argument.
lastly, stop using ad hominem arguments; they only make you look silly.
Mar 23rd 2010 • 22:03
by Travis Gearhart
Whoah whoah! Wait a minute! Did you just name a shit load of precedents? Wait…wait. Let me check what I had written above…in fact, fuck it. I’ll just copy and paste it: “You’re right about it being unconstitutional to not allow Muslims or interracial couples: those two items (religion and race) are blatantly covered in the Constitution. Same sex couples? NOT covered. Perhaps when the court looks at the case they will set the precedent, but until then, your wrong buddy.”
So, as we both know, once the Supreme Court looks at a case and rules it constitutional or unconstitutional, that is considered precedent. SO two girls going to prom together. A ruling in the Supreme Court yet? Sure, there have been several cases defending the rights of adults to practice homosexual behavior. Has there been a case where two girls who wanted to go to prom together have stood up before the Supreme Court and had a ruling? NO. SO LIKE I SAID, before you go calling things constitutional or unconstitutional, why don’t you see if there has been a case? Of course the Constitution is ambiguous about it’s wording, any dipshit out of eighth grade knows that. What’s silly about this whole argument is your complete lack of common sense. You’re grasping to make your point, Nate. And yes, we “blatantly” have a freedom of religion, and the civil rights laws protected race.
And by the way, you’re wrong about the school canceling because of her sexuality. I had thought that I had read this statement from the ACLU, but all I could find before were a bunch of fucking quotes from entertainment magazines, so I conceded.
“The ACLU said district officials told McMillen she and her girlfriend wouldn’t be allowed to arrive together, that she would not be allowed to wear a tuxedo, and that she and her girlfriend might be asked to leave if their presence made any other students “uncomfortable.”" This is from a story ran my ABC news channel 13 in that area. So basically the only stipulation was that they couldn’t arrive together. There was nothing about them not being allowed to be together.